@Devs, could you please take a look at my PR: https://github.com/apache/openjpa/pull/39
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 20:05, Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Matthew, > Maybe you can build openjpa from branch 'javax-index' locally > and check if the fix works for you as expected? > > On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 19:33, Matthew Broadhead > <matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > > > > Thanks, I am glad you are looking into the issue. I don't really know > > much about the internals of OpenJpa. The code you created looks sensible > > > > On 01/03/2019 11:41, Maxim Solodovnik wrote: > > > I have created JIRA to track the status: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-2777 > > > Will try to add some tests and will ask for review/verification :) > > > > > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 09:15, Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > >> I have started work on this > > >> > > >> Could you please take a look? Is it the step in right direction? > > >> https://github.com/apache/openjpa/compare/javax-index?expand=1 > > >> > > >> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 22:26, Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >>> Additional suspicious annotations are: > > >>> > > >>> org.apache.openjpa.persistence.jdbc.Unique ( vs. > > >>> javax.persistence.UniqueConstraint) > > >>> org.apache.openjpa.persistence.jdbc.ForeignKey ( vs. > > >>> javax.persistence.ForeignKey) > > >>> > > >>> maybe some more > > >>> Maybe it worth to be dropped and replaced with annotations from > > >>> javax.persistence.* ? > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 22:10, Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> Hello All, > > >>>> > > >>>> I'm still debugging the code trying to understand what is going on in > > >>>> the code > > >>>> It seems indices are being created for foreign keys only > > >>>> > > >>>> Can it be caused by the fact OpenJPA still has it's own annotation for > > >>>> indices org.apache.openjpa.persistence.jdbc.Index ? > > >>>> > > >>>> Will try to debug also `DBDictionary#getCreateIndexSQL` > > >>>> > > >>>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 02:12, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>> The generator happens in the MappingTool. This is the > > >>>>> top-level.Probably the best guess is to set a breakpoint in > > >>>>> DBDictionary#getCreateIndexSQLThe DBDictionary (and it's respecive > > >>>>> subclasses) is where all the adopting to different databases happens. > > >>>>> LieGrue,strub > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Tuesday, 18 December 2018, 03:53:51 CET, Maxim Solodovnik > > >>>>> <solomax...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Unfortunately I was unable to find where this magic happens :( > > >>>>> can someone from devs can point me to the right direction? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 16:58, Matthew Broadhead > > >>>>> <matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> i am using mysql > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On 15/12/2018 09:35, Maxim Solodovnik wrote: > > >>>>>>> Indicies seems to be auto-created on > > >>>>>>> @Id, @PrimaryKeyJoinColumn and @JoinColumn > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> just have tested with MySql DB Index seems not being created > > >>>>>>> will try to debug > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 23:33, Matthew Broadhead > > >>>>>>> <matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> i saw a similar example but was hoping the index could be > > >>>>>>>> automatically > > >>>>>>>> created. some indexes are automatically created but seeingly not > > >>>>>> others. > > >>>>>>>> i tried the annotations as in the example and the index is never > > >>>>>>>> created. here is what i have added to my class > > >>>>>>>> @Entity > > >>>>>>>> @Table(name = "billentry", indexes = { > > >>>>>>>> @Index(name = "I_BLLNTRY_SECTION", columnList = > > >>>>>>>> "BILLSECTION_ID", unique = false), > > >>>>>>>> @Index(name = "I_BLLNTRY_BILLTEMPLATEENTRY", columnList = > > >>>>>>>> "btentryid", unique = false) }) > > >>>>>>>> public class BillEntry implements Serializable { > > >>>>>>>> private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L; > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> @Id > > >>>>>>>> @GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY) > > >>>>>>>> private Long id; > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> @Version > > >>>>>>>> private Long version; > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> @ManyToOne > > >>>>>>>> private BillSection billSection; > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> @ManyToOne > > >>>>>>>> @Column(name = "btentryid") > > >>>>>>>> private BillTemplateEntry billTemplateEntry; > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On 12/12/2018 02:34, Maxim Solodovnik wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> This might help for the latest OpenJpa (it should have partial 2.1 > > >>>>>>>>> compatibility) > > >>>>>>>>> https://stackoverflow.com/a/22658951/3571661 > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 01:17, Matthew Broadhead > > >>>>>>>>> <matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> recently had an application running slowly and had to manually > > >>>>>>>>>> add an > > >>>>>>>>>> index. but openjpa seemed to create all the other indexes > > >>>>>>>> automatically. > > >>>>>>>>>> my structure was like > > >>>>>>>>>> Bill > > >>>>>>>>>> has a collection of > > >>>>>>>>>> BillMoney > > >>>>>>>>>> has a collection of > > >>>>>>>>>> BillSection > > >>>>>>>>>> has a collection of > > >>>>>>>>>> BillEntry > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> BillMoney was automatically created with index I_BLLMONY_BILL > > >>>>>>>>>> which > > >>>>>>>>>> related to the Bill id > > >>>>>>>>>> BillSection was automatically created with index > > >>>>>>>>>> I_BLLSCTN_BILLMONEY > > >>>>>>>>>> which related to the BillMoney section > > >>>>>>>>>> But BillEntry did not have an index. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> BillEntry was a pre existing table so could that have something > > >>>>>>>>>> to do > > >>>>>>>>>> with it? is there any way to force indexes to be created? > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> -- > > >>>>> WBR > > >>>>> Maxim aka solomax > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> WBR > > >>>> Maxim aka solomax > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> WBR > > >>> Maxim aka solomax > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> WBR > > >> Maxim aka solomax > > > > > > > > > > > -- > WBR > Maxim aka solomax -- WBR Maxim aka solomax
